New Intel ULV processors still a bad fit for MacBook Air

If you were hoping for an Arrandale makeover for Apple's ultra-thin notebook, …

Intel finally took the wraps off its latest ULV mobile processors, aimed directly at the ultra-thin portable category. However, these new processors don't present a clear upgrade path for the MacBook Air, leaving Apple with no good choices to make when it comes to refreshing its own ultra-thin laptop.

The most likely candidate from Intel's latest Core i3, i5, and i7 mobile processors is the Core i5-540UM. Though its nominal speed rating is only 1.2GHz—much lower than the current MacBook Air's LV Core 2 Duo at 1.86GHz or 2.13GHz—it can boost a single core up to 2GHz when conditions are right for Turbo Boost. Both cores are also hyperthreaded, so some performance advantages still exist on certain hyperthreading-friendly workloads even when running at a lower clockspeed.

However, there's a slight potential performance disadvantage to going this route compared to the Core 2 Duos currently used. According to Intel's specs for the 540UM, the processor comes with 3MB of cache, down from 6MB. This shrunken cache, when combined with hyperthreading, could be a recipe for some thrashing-induced slowdowns on more highly threaded workloads.

The cache issue is pretty trivial, though, compared to the choices Apple faces for graphics. Like the rest of Intel's Arrandale-class mobile processors, these newest ULV models are still saddled with the fair-to-middling Intel HD integrated graphics processor stuck right on the processor package. This updated IGP is certainly an improvement over previous Intel offerings, but it won't cut it as far as Apple is concerned—the IGP is roughly comparable to Apple's last-generation NVIDIA 9400M integrated graphics, and isn't compatible with OpenCL.

This is the tiny logic board that powers the MacBook Air. This 2008 version shows the small-outline Core 2 Duo (red) and the Intel controller with integrated graphics (green).

Apple might consider trying to jam in a discrete mobile GPU and use its automatic graphics switching technology. However, the package for the CPU alone—along with the Intel IGP that Apple doesn't even want—is twice the size of the small-outline Core 2 Duo used in current MacBook Air models. When the required small-form-factor chipset is included, that doesn't leave room on the MacBook Air's tiny logic board for a discrete GPU. And, even if Apple were to try and make space for all that, it would likely take up some of the precious space needed for battery capacity. A discrete GPU could negate a chunk of the power savings that the new processors offer, too, presenting Apple with a battery life double whammy.

Because Intel is still battling NVIDIA in court over whether it has the necessary license to make chipsets for Intel's latest processors, Apple can't pair these new Core i5 processors with the new NVIDIA 320M used in the new 13" MacBook Pro and white MacBook. That means Apple would have to stick with Core 2 Duo processors, and it doesn't appear that Intel is producing any newer small-outline versions. There would be a small performance improvement—especially paired with a likely RAM boost to 4GB—but not likely enough for current MacBook Air users to justify an upgrade.

Short of convincing Intel and NVIDIA to settle their differences, getting Intel to make a Core i5 processor without an IGP, and mating that to an NVIDIA 320M, Apple doesn't really have any options to offer a compelling upgrade to the MacBook Air. Future Intel processors in the Sandy Bridge family will have the IGP further integrated by packaging it on the same die as the CPU itself; if Intel includes OpenCL support for those IGPs, Apple might have a viable upgrade path. Then again, Apple may not be willing to wait that long; it might just pull the plug on the MacBook Air entirely.

I wouldn't be surprised if they just pulled it altogether. I've never gotten the impression that it's all that popular (someone correct me on that if I'm wrong), especially since it' not as if the Macbook Pro is particularly chunky. Might we finally see an Apple netbook to replace it?

@seanwillsalt compared to the Air, both the MB and MPB, even the 13" models, are whacking great wedges - that's ignoring the weight.. My Air goes everywhere with me, just sitting in my backpack and I don't even notice it. I have zero criticism of the 2.13Ghz Core2Duo, the only upgrade I would welcome would be boosting the 2Gb RAM to 4Gb.

Apple has said that it has not taken AMD off the table. Maybe its time for a Turion X2 to make its way into an Apple product. That gets them by the issue with Intel's IGP and the issue with nVidia vs. Intel lawsuit.

That was my first thought. Question is, does AMD have the capacity and supply reliability Apple wants? At one time that was an issue. And will Apple try/be able to get a "real deal" on them because they're "not Intel?"

Frosty Grin wrote:

Does it really need an upgrade? Just make it cheaper and/or use a more capacious battery.

I would welcome that! More RAM, lower price. But I doubt Apple would put out a new model that isn't meaningfully upgraded from the previous one. And the lower price might dilute Apple's "cachet". So probably not.

This is the tiny logic board that powers the MacBook Air. This 2008 version shows the small-outline Core 2 Duo (red) and the Intel controller with integrated graphics (green).

Surely you mean 9400M is the green chip, right?

That said, the MBA would need to be overhauled completely to move to i5. Redo the unit so there is more internal volume for a PCB as well as battery. I don't see this as likely.

I would expect a bump to the 320M and 4GB of RAM. And the RAM upgrade could happen without an increase of RAM chips - there are 2Gbit/chip DDR3 RAM chips available now, and they run at 1.35V (10% less power consumption than 1.5/1.65V chips).

At least the graphics built into the i5 is compatible with Open CL, the i3 and the ULV processors aren't. The 9400 is still a better option. Intel's terrible GPUs are beginning to stifle Apple, much like IBM's inability to push the G5 to the speed and heat production Apple wanted. Unfortunately any talk of Apple and AMD is likely for their new parts that won't be out until early next year. Currently Intel has the edge on power and power consumption both. The next round of AMD chips is supposed to be much closer in both regards.

The amount of Apple news could be reduced to 1/10th and it probably would still be too much.

Posts like this could be reduced to 0/10ths and it would be just right.

If you're not interested, don't read it. I don't care about the article above this one entitled: "Game combines 'fun' of parenting newborns with Wii". Guess what? I didn't read it! Exercising free will is a fantastic technique for avoiding things that don't interest you.

Apple has periodically 'bumped' certain models without changing the major product designation. I'd guess that would be the likely choice for the MB Air until a significantly better set of chips become available. The Mini was left stagnant for well over a year before a much better version came along.

I think the speed increases now are incremental. Why upgrade if your only gaining single digit increases from the previous model. I know Apple would love to convince you otherwise. But the MB Air has never been a power horse and if anything I would take a little less speed on a Air if I could gain even more battery life. I do not think AMD has anything to help this situation out though. In fact maybe a core duo Atom could actually do wonders for a MB Air if your looking at battery life. I mean a Nvidia ION GPU could go along with the 2 core Atom and make for a pretty decent compromise?

The Core iX series—from the point of view of Apple—require discrete graphics because the Intel IGP doesn't fit Apple's requirements. That would require a major logic board redesign, as well as probable battery life and thermal problems. The 320M is more efficient than the 9400M, so paired with a Core2 Duo, that might work.

There are at least a few people that would be happy with upping the RAM to 4GB and upgrading the controller/GPU to the 320M. I still doubt whether there would be enough demand for Apple to justify building, marketing, and supporting it. If Apple could also drop the price at the same time, that might drive enough additional demand to make it viable.

Apple has said that it has not taken AMD off the table. Maybe its time for a Turion X2 to make its way into an Apple product. That gets them by the issue with Intel's IGP and the issue with nVidia vs. Intel lawsuit.

We considered this, but there isn't really anything compelling from AMD that would make switching from the Core2 Duo worth the effort.

Apple is using it's own processor in the iPad. Apple may switch the iPhone to it's own processor - we will know in a month or so. If Apple wants to eventually switch their laptops and desktops to their own processors, perhaps the MacBook Air would be a good place to start. I don't see it happening for this holiday season, but maybe in 2011.

Could it be that apple will get first dibs on a smaller mobile i5 package that intel hasn't announced today? It happened when the MBA was first announced - it was using a chip with a package much smaller than anything Intel was currently producing. The main problem is the relatively gigantic chipset which can be seen with the motherboard shot.

And would AMD be a realistic choice? Do their integrated offerings even support OpenCL? I know they have terrible performance per watt for the cpu compared to Intel, which doesn't really fit with the great battery life apple likes to promote.

The amount of Apple news could be reduced to 1/10th and it probably would still be too much.

Posts like this could be reduced to 0/10ths and it would be just right.

If you're not interested, don't read it. I don't care about the article above this one entitled: "Game combines 'fun' of parenting newborns with Wii". Guess what? I didn't read it! Exercising free will is a fantastic technique for avoiding things that don't interest you.

If Apple wants to eventually switch their laptops and desktops to their own processors, perhaps the MacBook Air would be a good place to start. I don't see it happening for this holiday season, but maybe in 2011.

I don't see this happening then, if ever. For desktop computing Mac OS is well-tuned to the x86 chipset, along with every 3rd-party Mac app currently being sold. Jobs himself has said, in effect, "Apple should milk the Macintosh platform for all it's worth, and move on to something new". The 'something new' is obviously the iPhone/iPad platform, but there's no financial reason to drag the Mac platform through Yet Another CPU Transition. Three times (four if you count 32bit>64bit) is enough.

I wonder if Intel's vision of CPU/GPU coupling and their dispute with nVidia is worth the crap it's causing. Seems like they could have avoided this by making their new chips at least more accessible to dedicated graphics; even on the desktop enthusiasts run into problems with fewer PCIe lanes.

If Apple wants to eventually switch their laptops and desktops to their own processors, perhaps the MacBook Air would be a good place to start. I don't see it happening for this holiday season, but maybe in 2011.

I don't see this happening then, if ever. For desktop computing Mac OS is well-tuned to the x86 chipset, along with every 3rd-party Mac app currently being sold. Jobs himself has said, in effect, "Apple should milk the Macintosh platform for all it's worth, and move on to something new". The 'something new' is obviously the iPhone/iPad platform, but there's no financial reason to drag the Mac platform through Yet Another CPU Transition. Three times (four if you count 32bit>64bit) is enough.

You're right. Mac won't go that way, but no one says that the next "Macbook Air"-like product will for certain have OSX on it.

I don't think concerns about clock speed are valid since the MacBook Air doesn't use ULV processors. They use LV processors in smaller packages. As such CPU candidates are more along the lines of the 2GHz Core i7 620LM and the 2.13GHz Core i7 640LM.

The IGP is still a concern. Likely Apple will just opt for a special run of higher clock speed LV SFF Core 2 Duos, which Intel doesn't currently offer but would no doubt make an exception for Apple as is the case in the past to keep them happy or at least quiet. Combined with the GeForce 320M and finally 4GB of RAM would still make a decent bump for it's form factor.

Mac won't go that way, but no one says that the next "Macbook Air"-like product will for certain have OSX on it.

It's been said that the iPhone OS is considered to be part of the 'OS X' family, with the other sibling being 'Mac OS X'. The semantics of all this is something that Apple will need to resolve down the road, since the 'X' in 'OS X' originally referred to 10 in roman numerals. (The last 'classic' version of Mac OS prior to that was 9.x) Some people even say 'Mac OS X 10.x' which seems redundant in that context.

While Apple's product identities are less cumbersome than Microsoft's rambling concatenation of marketing labels, they still need to sort it all out both with the various versions of 'OS X' and the catch-all mess that iTunes has become. Perhaps Jobs will pull one of his classic bridge-burning moves and re-arrange everything with little sentiment towards legacy. (And hopefully not use the word 'magic' again in doing so.)

Mac won't go that way, but no one says that the next "Macbook Air"-like product will for certain have OSX on it.

It's been said that the iPhone OS is considered to be part of the 'OS X' family, with the other sibling being 'Mac OS X'. The semantics of all this is something that Apple will need to resolve down the road, since the 'X' in 'OS X' originally referred to 10 in roman numerals. (The last 'classic' version of Mac OS prior to that was 9.x) Some people even say 'Mac OS X 10.x' which seems redundant in that context.

While Apple's product identities are less cumbersome than Microsoft's rambling concatenation of marketing labels, they still need to sort it all out both with the various versions of 'OS X' and the catch-all mess that iTunes has become. Perhaps Jobs will pull one of his classic bridge-burning moves and re-arrange everything with little sentiment towards legacy. (And hopefully not use the word 'magic' again in doing so.)